The death penalty brings neither closure nor justice

On Monday, Judge Thomas Hart will enter a Marion County courtroom and carry out his duty as the judge in the Bruce and Joshua Turnidge case. He will pronounce the final death sentence for the two men. But that final sentencing is not the end of the case, but rather a new beginning. Hart's sentencing will initiate a series of appeals that will predictably last for at least 20 years -- based on the cases of current death row inmates, perhaps longer.

Bruce Turnidge walks out of the Marion County Courthouse following the guilty verdict Dec. 8 in Salem. Turnidge and his son Joshua were convicted of planting a bank bomb that killed two police officers in a botched robbery. (AP Photo/Rick Bowmer)

The first and most important statements that should be made throughout the discussion of this trial and sentencing are those in sympathy for the victims and their families. Violence in our society sets off ripples that resonate far and wide. Each death sentence also sets off ripples that go on and on and on, with little or any closure. Like the judge, the jurors also anguished over their decision-making process while doing their duty as citizens.

Supporters of the death penalty promise victims' families "closure" with an execution. As a member of the national board of directors of Murder Victims Families for Reconciliation, I know hundreds upon hundreds of family members who find no "closure" in the killing of another human being. They find no lessening of the sadness and sorrow of losing a loved one. They do not feel in any way that an execution honors the memory of their lost loved ones. For them, closure is a myth. When asked about executions, they will respond, "Not in my name."

For some, Monday's sentencing of the Turnidge father and son will bring immediate gratification. But we need to think about what gratification the family members will have on the Jan. 24s of five, 10, 15 or 20 years from now, when the matter is still not concluded. Those family members will have to endure time and time again, more hearings, more trials, more testimony, and each occasion re-opening the emotional wounds that they so desperately try to escape.

As the media covers the sentencing Monday, the reporters and their readers or listeners should think about the laws that Judge Hart and the members of the Turnidge jury have upheld. What is the value of a death penalty? Who does it serve? Why do we have such a law?

I oppose the death penalty for a long list of reasons, and near the very top of my list is the fact that a death sentence provides a spotlight for the defendants and the prosecution, while victims' families languish in sorrow. Maintaining a death penalty system in Oregon costs taxpayers millions upon millions of dollars, not to speak of the emotional cost to all involved. By repealing the death penalty those dollars could be directed to benefits for victims' families. They could be directed to programs that really do deter violent crime, rehabilitation programs for addicted offenders, early childhood education, intervention into abusive households and more police on the streets to keep us safe.

We should rid ourselves of the death penalty and move toward restorative justice. Oregon has had a long period of time without an execution. Two more men on our death row will be of little value to anyone. The alternative of life without parole is a better solution.

Ron Steiner is chairman of Oregonians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty.